Main report

This part of the report allows to

• analyse the extent to which the curriculum development targets meet the needs of society and national objectives and strategies;
• assess the employability of graduates and the actions needed for their development (incl. cooperation with employers and alumni).

1.1. Ensuring the employability of graduates (up to 2,500 characters)

What is the main national objective (innovation, entrepreneurship, economic and service development, development of (civic) society, cultural and linguistic development, sustainable development, etc.) the curriculum development is directed to? What changes in society and the labour market affect the curriculum, and how? What is the demand for graduates of the curriculum? Do employers consider that graduates have sufficient competencies, what is lacking, is there a need to add some specialisation? How do alumni rate their employability? What skills will graduates need in the future? OSKA reports, labour force projections, surveys, interviews, benchmarking, cooperation projects, etc. will provide information for analysis.

The figures show data on the employment of alumni and their median wage.

The data can also be viewed on the statistics dashboard at curricula, accessed from the university network or with a VPN connection; the link is also available in the statistics section in SIS2.

1.2. Internationalisation and promotion of Estonian society, language and culture (up to 2,500 characters)

How international and comparable to foreign universities is the learning experience provided by the curriculum? Which cooperation is done with partner universities (mobility of students and teaching staff, virtual cooperation)? Does the curriculum provide the skills to study and work abroad? How important do employers and alumni consider the internationalisation of the studies to be? Why? What do teaching staff consider to hinder or support the internationalisation of teaching? Which activities at curriculum or university level do employers, alumni and teaching staff consider the most important in promoting Estonian-taught studies, Estonian language (terminology) and culture? Are international students (if any) prepared for employment in Estonia?

The figure shows the share of students who have studied abroad (among graduates of the curriculum). Comparison with the average of the level of study in the faculty and at the university.

1.3. High-level research-based studies (up to 2,500 characters)

How does the curriculum help students develop scientific thinking and acquire top-level knowledge and skills? What is the quality of supervision, how easy it is to find a thesis supervisor? Are top-level experts from outside the university involved in teaching? How can students participate in (international) research and innovation projects? How is the supply and succession of highly qualified teaching staff ensured? See the definition of science-based teaching in the Good practice of teaching.

This part of the report includes agreed statistical indicators, commented on by the programme director and supplemented by feedback and expectations from teaching staff, employers and alumni. The source of the data is indicated in brackets after each indicator:

• number of admitted students, share of student places filled (SAIS);
• learners’ satisfaction with the chosen curriculum and with the choices within the curriculum (curriculum feedback questionnaire);
• taking course feedback into account (course feedback questionnaire);
• learners’ assessment of the development of their competencies (curriculum feedback questionnaire);
• graduation rate, drop-out rates in the first year and at the end of studies (SIS);
• learners’ satisfaction with the learning environment and e-learning support (curriculum feedback questionnaire);
• learners’ participation in student mobility, opportunities for international learning experiences;
• main helpers of learners, learner expectations for support (curriculum feedback questionnaire).

2.1. The marketing of and admission to the curriculum has brought the desired target group to study (up to 2,500 characters)

Have motivated and capable students been admitted to study in the curriculum? What do the teaching staff find that could be done more or better to cater for the target group?

The figure shows data on filled student places: comparison of applicants, admitted students, matriculated students and the number of student places.

2.2. The curriculum has been thoughtfully designed (up to 5,000 characters)

Do the teaching staff find the curriculum coherent, with courses in a logical sequence and interlinked? Which courses could be taught together or closer together? Are the volumes of courses (workload in relation to ECTS) appropriate? How well are the requirements of the Statutes of Curriculum met (module of a semester abroad, Estonian language courses, entrepreneurship courses)? In the opinion of teaching staff, has the availability of options led to teaching courses with too many or too few participants, to different levels of satisfaction with the course among students of different specialisations, or to other concerns that need to be addressed?

The figure shows the data from the curriculum feedback survey – students’ ratings for two statements: 1. I feel I have chosen the right curriculum. 2. I am satisfied with the choices I can make within my curriculum (modules, optional or elective courses). The data can be compared by the time studied or with the average for the faculty and the UT. More information on the results of the curriculum feedback survey can be found on the curriculum statistics dashboard at curricula.

2.3. Teaching and assessment supports learning* (up to 10,000 characters)

To what extent have teaching staff been motivated to make changes (e.g. improved giving feedback or e-support, diversified teaching, etc.) based on student feedback? What learning methods should be introduced to increase learner autonomy and responsibility (self-management)? How has assessment been modified to support learning and monitor the development of general skills?

The figures show the data from the curriculum feedback survey indicating satisfaction with courses – students’ ratings for statements: 1. I understand how the courses I studied enable me to be more successful in the future. 2. I understand the relevance of the courses in my curriculum. The data can be compared by the time studied (ratings by students of the first or final year) or with the average for the faculty and the UT.

For more information and explanations on course feedback in comparison with previous years and other courses and by statements characterising teaching, see the statistics dashboard course feedback, accessed from the university network or with a VPN connection; the link is also available in the statistics section in SIS2.

Students’ ratings for the following statements are used to calculate the aggregate result of the teaching component:

• Students were given the chance to discuss the subject matter.
• The assessment was closely related to the teaching.
• The teaching was varied (different kinds of methods and tasks were employed).
• The feedback helped me understand which knowledge and/or what skills I should develop further.
• The structure of the course supported my learning.

The analysis should identify the most important problem for the courses in the curriculum (e.g. the most problematic statement) and list the courses (or topics) that need to be addressed and used as a role model during the year.

2.4. The curriculum supports the development of competencies the graduates need (up to 2,500 characters)

In the opinion of teaching staff and students, the development of which competencies should the curriculum definitely support? How well do the teaching staff know which courses they can draw on in teaching their course and in which courses the student can develop the acquired knowledge and skills further?

The figure shows the data from the curriculum feedback survey. When responding to the survey, students rated the development of their 20 competencies during their studies (developed a lot, developed to some extent, did not develop, or competency decreased). Comparisons can be made according to the time studied or with the faculty and university average. It is important to analyse whether the competencies developed are the ones the curriculum aims to develop. A conclusion from the open question about which competencies could be developed more at the university can also be included.

2.5. Students successfully reach graduation (up to 2,500 characters)

According to teaching staff, which activities/courses in the curriculum and when help to support learning and reduce the drop-out rate?

The figures show data on the completion of studies within the standard period of study or n+1 year and the drop-out rate in the first year.

2.6. Learning environment and support services support students’ learning (up to 2,500 characters)

How, or how well, do students know whom to contact with which questions? What kind of support are students satisfied with, and what can be improved? What investments in the learning environment, incl. the e-learning infrastructure, do students and teaching staff consider most important?

2.7. The organisation of teaching, the students, teaching staff or graduates receive recognition (up to 2,500 characters)

E.g. teaching staff of the year award or other recognition by the university, e-learning quality labels, students’ success in competitions and contests (research and innovation), graduates continuing their studies in top universities worldwide.

* Mandatory fields

A short summary is compiled based on the analysis. What past developments have been beneficial for the curriculum. What improvement needs have been identified and what improvement activities are planned for the coming years (2–3 activities).

The template of the main report has been supplemented with guiding questions to help open up the topic. These questions help to write the analysis. Not all questions may carry equal weight in the development of all curricula, so the programme director can choose which ones to focus on in the analysis and which stakeholders (teaching staff, employers, alumni) to consult to identify opportunities for improvement.

3.1. Summary evaluation of the functioning of the curriculum, suggestions for improvement* (up to 5,000 characters)

Summarise the aspects in which the curriculum is doing well and what needs improvement. What major changes have been successfully implemented in recent years? Provide feedback on activities that have contributed (as well as people who have contributed) to developing the curriculum and its organisation of studies. Identify areas of concern that need to be discussed and addressed (and whose action or decisions you need for that).

3.2. Action plan for the years /…/* (up to 5,000 characters)

Set objectives for the next 3-year period and outline 2–3 activities the programme director will address to achieve the objectives; proposals to the manager to address wider issues.

* Mandatory fields